Currently browsing posts about: Peanut-butter

Really?  Another peanut butter Salmonella recall?  The last one was a disaster (more than 700 cases of illness and 9 deaths).  Among other things, it resulted in imprisonment for the head of the Peanut Corporation of America.

Well, here we go again.

The FDA announced the outbreak traced to Smucker’s Jif.

It also announced Smucker’s recall of those products.

And it provided links to further information.

• What is Salmonella
• Food Safety Tips for Consumers & Retailers During an Outbreak
• Who to Contact

The CDC announced its investigation results to date.

• Illnesses: 16
• Hospitalizations: 2
• Deaths: 0
• States: 12
• Recall: Yes
• Investigation status: Active

And it issued a food safety alert. Peanut butter has a long shelf life.  Discard Jif peanut butter with lot code numbers 1274425 through 2140425, with “425” at the end of the first 7 numbers.

But that’s not all.  Companies using Jif peanut butter dip with precut vegetables or in candy were also in trouble (see list at the end).

How does Salmonella get into peanut butter?  Scientific American explained how this happened the last time.

Feces from some animal is a strong possibility. A leak in the roof, for example, caused one of the early outbreaks. How salmonella got into the water that was on the roof, no one knows for sure. Maybe birds, for instance, which accumulate around peanut butter processing plants.  The roasting of peanuts is the only step that will kill the salmonella. If contamination occurs after the roasting process, the game is over and salmonella is going to survive. Studies have shown that salmonella can survive for many months in peanut butter once it’s present.

Preventive controls, anyone?

And here, thanks to Bill Marler and Food Safety News, is the current list of Jif recalls: .

• The JM Smucker Co. – US May 20, 2022
• The JM Smucker Co. – Canada May 21, 2022

The collateral damage:

• Rainbow Asset Limited – Hong Kong:May 23, 2022
• Randy Ltd. – Israel:May 23, 2022
• Albertsons Companies(11 store-prepared items) May 21, 2022
• Bix Produce Company(2 products containing Jif Creamy Peanut Butter To Go 1.5 oz. cup) May 26, 2022
• Cargill(multiple products containing peanut butter, sold at the Wilbur Chocolate Retail Store in Lititz, Pa. and online at Wilburbuds.com.) May 23, 2022
• Coblentz Chocolate Company(multiple peanut butter products) May 24, 2022
• Country Fresh(select fresh-cut fruit snack trays and fruit snack cups) May 24, 2022
• Fresh Del Monte(fresh-cut fruit and vegetable products containing ready-to-eat Jif^® peanut butter dip) May 24, 2022
• Fudgeamentals(several fudge products made with Jif Peanut Butter) May 25, 2022
• Garden Cut, LLC(Garden Cut products containing 0.750z Jif Peanut Butter Cup) May 24, 2022
• Giant(Store Brand Apples, Pretzels & Celery with Peanut Butter) May 23, 2022
• Martin’s(Store Brand Apples, Pretzels & Celery with Peanut Butter) May 23, 2022
• Mary’s Harvest Fresh Foods Inc(Mary’s Harvest Celery Peanut Butter Cup G&G and Apple Peanut Butter Cup G&G) May 24, 2022
• Price Chopper(M32 Apples, Cheese and Pretzels with Peanut Butter Tray) May 23, 2022
• Taher Inc.(“Fresh Seasons Power Packs”) May 24, 2022
• Wawa(two products containing Jif Peanut Butter) May 24, 2022
• Wegmans(Wegmans Snack with Apple, Pretzels, Cheese and Peanut Butter) May 22, 2022

Here is my latest collection of accounts of unusual or unexpected food items.  Ice creams are high on the list.

• NPD Trend Tracker: From ice cream made with baby milk to energy boosting powders: In this week’s new product development gallery, we spotlight a new ice cream targeting adults but made from infant formula and energy boosting powders for endurance athletes and others seeking an energy lift…. See more
• Lithuania tempting tourists – with smoked mackerel ice cream?  Lithuania Travel, the national tourism development agency, is hoping in a post-Covid world tourists will be attracted to the Baltic country to experience some of its, shall we say, more unusual cuisine, which includes some ice cream flavors many might find a little strange…. Read more
• Nine new bizarre ice cream flavors from Lithuanian chefs:  They’re at it again. It wasn’t that long ago we revealed some more ‘interesting’ ice cream flavors from Lithuanian chefs who were experimenting with some new and unusual flavors…. Read more
• The critical role of the humble PB&J:  With the world still in various states of lockdown thanks to COVID-19, bread’s rise in popularity continues to thrive as people seek out comfort and nostalgia. The demand for the classic all-American peanut butter and jelly (PB&J) sandwich – while harking on a retro trend that spiked last year – also proved to be a life saver for many…. Read more
• Leftovers: Jelly Belly chews its way into a new category; Campbell brews up a pretzel-infused beer: The colorful candy brings some of its flavors to a gum, while Reese’s sweetens up International Delight’s ready-to-drink iced coffee.
• ‘A major milestone for the food industry …’ FDA approves Sensient’s ‘exceptionally heat-stable’ natural blue food color from butterfly pea flower:  The FDA has approved an aqueous extract of the blue petals of butterfly pea flower (Clitoria ternatea) – a plant native to Southeast Asia – as a color additive exempt from certification following a petition from Sensient Technologies, which described the approval as “a major milestone for the food industry” that “closes an important gap in the natural color palette.”.. Read

You are wondering what Clitoria ternatea looks like?  Good enough to eat, I guess.

I was interested to see the FDA’s announcement that it “acknowledges” and will “exercise enforcement discretion” (translation: will not oppose) a qualified health claim linking the early introduction of peanuts into the diets of young children with severe eczema or egg allergies as a means to reduce their risk of peanut allergy.

Here’s the claim, which the FDA says manufacturers can use right away:

For most infants with severe eczema and/or egg allergy who are already eating solid foods, introducing foods containing ground peanuts between 4 and 10 months of age and continuing consumption may reduce the risk of developing peanut allergy by 5 years of age. FDA has determined, however, that the evidence supporting this claim is limited to one study. If your infant has severe eczema and/or egg allergy, check with your infant’s healthcare provider before feeding foods containing ground peanuts.

The FDA’s decision is based on:

• That one study, which I’ve written about in two previous posts (see here and here).
• Epidemiological evidence on the increasing prevalence of peanut allergies among U.S. children
• Recommendations of pediatric authorities, particularly the 2017 Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States.

But why a qualified health claim?  Whenever you see one, you know that business interests are at stake.

In this case, the claim is in response to a petition filed by Assured Bites, Inc., maker of Hello Peanut products.  Check the astonishing prices of these products and you can see why this company wanted a health claim, and why it is already advertising it.

Really, you can do this at home.  We are talking here about starting high-risk kids out—under medical supervision—with a small taste of plain, ordinary peanut butter.

The FDA allows qualified health claims because industry wants them for marketing and pressures Congress to force the FDA to allow them.

What’s wrong with qualified health claims?  The qualifications get lost in the marketing.  Parents may think Hello Peanut works better than much less expensive alternatives.

 The FDA documents

• FDA Response to Petition for a Qualified Health Claim for Ground Peanuts and Reduced Risk of Developing Peanut Allergy
• FDA Commissioner Statement
• Questions and Answers: Qualified Health Claims in Food Labeling
• Guidance for Industry: Evidence-Based Review System for the Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims
• Qualified Health Claims: Letters of Enforcement Discretion
• 2017 Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States (NIAID, NIH)

Also see

• Critical commentary in JAMA

I am just getting around to the burning question of how much peanut butter constitutes a serving size.

Earlier this month, the FDA put out a call for comments on this question.  In FDA-speak: “the Appropriate Product Category and Reference Amount Customarily Consumed for Flavored Nut Butter Spreads and Products that Can Be Used to Fill Cupcakes and Other Desserts.”

The FDA is inviting comments (note that a RACC is “Reference Amount Customarily Consumed”)

in part because it recently issued a final rule updating certain RACCs, and the agency has also received a citizen petition asking that it either (1) issue guidance recognizing that “nut cocoa-based spreads” fall within the “Honey, jams, jellies, fruit butter, molasses” category for the purposes of RACC determination, or (2) amend the current regulation relating to RACCs to establish a new RACC category for “nut cocoa-based spreads” with a RACC of 1 tablespoon.

What on earth is this about?  Ask: Who could possibly care?  The answer: Nutella.

As CNN explains, the “citizen petition” comes from Ferrero, the maker of Nutella, which has been trying for two years to get the FDA to reduce the serving size.

Why?  Because the current serving size is two tablespoons—200 calories.

Nutella thinks you might buy more if the serving size were one tablespoon and only 100 calories.

CNN quotes Nutella’s latest petition:

Ferrero’s most recent advertising and promotion has advocated the consumption of a balanced breakfast with the inclusion of Nutella as a tasty, complementary spread to add on to nutrient-rich whole grain breads, fruits, and dairy products.

CNN also notes that

In 2012, Ferrero settled a class-action lawsuit for $3 million after a 4-year-old’s mother claimed she was shocked to discover that the hazelnut-chocolate spread — whose first two ingredients are sugar and palm oil — was nutritionally similar to a candy bar despite being advertised as a healthy breakfast option.

I swear I am not making this up.

If you care to comment, go to http://www.regulations.gov and type FDA-2016-N-2938 in the search box.

The relevant documents:

• Federal Register Notice: Reference Amount Customarily Consumed for Flavored Nut Butter Spreads (e.g., cocoa, cookie, and coffee flavored), and Products that Can Be Used to Fill Cupcakes and Other Desserts, in the Labeling of Human Food Products; Request for Information and Comments
• Final Rule: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments

Federal court officers are recommending what attorneys are calling an “unprecedented” sentence of life in prison for a Stewart Parnell, the former owner of the Peanut Corporation of America.  He was convicted last fall of selling bulk peanut butter from his plant in Georgia to food processors—even after the peanut butter tested positive for Salmonella.

The CDC associated the tainted peanuts with the deaths of 9 people and illnesses among more than 700.

The government’s sentencing recommendations say:

The Government submits that the U.S. Probation Office correctly calculated the Sentencing Guidelines adjusted offense level for Stewart Parnell to be 47 with criminal history category I, which results in a life sentence Guidelines range; for Michael Parnell, to be adjusted offense level 37 with criminal history category I, which results in a 210 to 262 months Guidelines range; and for Wilkerson to be adjusted offense level 30 with a criminal history of I, which results in a 97 to 121 months Guidelines range.

Does the punishment fit the crime?  Bill Marler’s discusses of the legal issues related to this conviction as opposed to the results of similar cases.  Marler is usually unsympathetic to owners of companies producing foods that kill people, but in this instance he says:

I find it a bit hard to parse out why some have been targeted – OK, perhaps the Parnell prosecution is a bit easier because it was so clearly intentional – and some have not, or at least not yet.  Honestly, what are the differences in prosecuting the Jensens, DeCosters and ConAgra and leaving the others – so far – unmolested…Is it the number of sick, the number of dead? Is it the economic consequences? What really are the criteria, or, should it simply be left to the discretion of the prosecutor as to who or what feels the sting of the criminal justice system?

The wheels of justice really do grind slow, but they sometimes do grind.  A federal grand jury has indicted four officials of the Peanut Butter Corporation of America for “conspiracy, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and others offenses related to contaminated or misbranded food.”

Translation: Salmonella that sickened more than 500 people and killed at least 8.

The documents in the case have just been unsealed:

• Peanut Corporation of America Indicment
• Indictment of Daniel Kilgore
• FBI — Form for victims to file

I’ve been following this particular food safety tragedy for several years now.  The offenses were so egregious—officials blatantly ignored positive tests for Salmonella, for example—that some kind of punishment seemed warranted.

According to the account in USA Today:

The indictment alleges that PCA officials affirmatively lied to their customers about the presence of salmonella in PCA’s products,” said Stuart Delery, principal deputy assistant attorney general.

Delery also said some officials at PCA, no longer in business, fabricated lab results certifying to customers that the products were salmonella free “even when tests showed the presence of salmonella or when no tests had been done at all.”

As lawyer Bill Marler writes,

These indictments will have a far reaching impact on the food industry.  Corporate executives and directors of food safety will need to think hard about the safety of their product when it enters the stream of commerce.  Felony counts like this one are rare, but misdemeanor charges that can include fines AND jail time can and should happen.

Is this a sign that courts might be taking food safety problems more seriously?  If so, it’s about time.

Addition, February 22:  Food Safety News has a handy timeline of the Peanut Corporation events.

The New York Times Magazine has a long article this week about Plumpy’nut,  the peanut butter-based product designed to feed malnourished kids in emergency situations.  The product is made and patented by Nutriset, a French company.

You might think that a food product aimed at saving the lives of starving kids would be uncontroversial, but not when patents are involved.  Nutriset holds intellectual property rights to this product and defends them to the hilt.   The company extends its patent to line extensions of the product, as well.

Patents mean that people in developing countries who want to produce their own product based on local ingredients can’t do it.  It also means that anyone making the product has to follow the formula, even if ingredients are expensive and not locally available.

In September 2007, I wrote about Plumpy’nut, describing how peanut butter had become the basis of a “ready-to-use therapeutic food” (RUTF) for aiding recovery of severely malnourished children in Africa.

The study itself is published in Maternal and Child Nutrition and the authors make the point that people administering this RUTF do not need to be medically trained so this therapy can be used at home. I’m always amazed when researchers discover that feeding malnourished children helps them to recover. Peanut butter is highly concentrated in calories and the investigators mixed in some vitamins along with it, so I guess it can be considered a superfood.

Since then, much has been written about the controversy over this product, particularly about its formula, cost, and sustainability.

Its formula includes:

• Peanut Butter
• Dry Skim Milk
• Vegetable oil
• Powdered sugar
• Minerals & vitamins

It contains about 500 calories in a 92-gram foil package.

Of these calories, one-quarter to one-third are from the added sugar.  No wonder kids like it!

What about its cost? A recent article about local production of Plumpy’ nut in Niger illustrates this particular problem.

UNICEF pays US$60 to purchase and ship a box of 150 packets from the main producer and patent holder of Plumpy’nut, Nutriset, in France. It costs $65 in Niger. The difference adds up to an extra $15,000 for the 3,000 boxes purchased in Niamey every week.

“The luxury of having no production delays and not fully depending on an external provider is a price we are willing to pay,” UNICEF’s nutrition manager, Eric-Alain Ategbo, told IRIN. Ategbo said it took at least eight weeks for the nutritious peanut butter-like paste to arrive from France.

Here are some other cost concerns:

Electricity is expensive, taxes are high and money is expensive as interest rates are high. It would be cheaper if the products we use were bought locally, but they are not available.  Peanuts are the only ingredient from Niger. Others, such as milk, sugar and oil, are purchased internationally. We also have the obligation to buy specific products [such as micronutrients and packaging] from Nutriset in order to respect the formula.

As for its sustainability:

• Who is going to pay for these products?  And for how long?
• Does it make sense to promote a peanut-based product in countries that do not grow peanuts?
• Is it a good idea to give packaged, sweetened products to kids whose families cannot continue to provide such things once the crisis is over?
• Is it a good idea to give kids the idea that sweet things in packages are what they supposed to eat?
• Will products like this pave the way for other sweetened products in packages—soft drinks, for example?

These are all complicated issues.  Read the article and ponder.

In 2005, the FDA required certain categories of manufacturers to keep records about the source, transporters, and recipients of their products.  Recently, the Inspector General of the FDA’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, conducted an exercise to see whether traceability was working.  Inspectors bought 4 samples of 10 different food products (e.g., bottled water, oatmeal, tomatoes) at retail stores and attempted to track their supply chains.  Oops.  It only could trace 5.  For another 31, it could make educated guesses.  But nearly 60% of food facilities handling these products could not complete the tracing and 25% did not know they were supposed to.

The FDA, says the Inspector General, needs statutory authority to require producers to know their supply chains and everybody involved needs some education about how to do this.  No wonder we are still getting daily recalls of products containing peanut better.  Statutory authority means Congress.  I wish Congress would get busy on this!